I planned to make a mod on the last Natchez's War, and will (probably) start it after I finish my AARs.

I have more or less finished my "research" and I have a nice list of leaders for both sides, and the exact number of men involved (thank you Arnaud Balvay). Only thing lacking right now is the name of the ships used by the French to bring reinforcement, but I am not sure I am going to include them anyway.

I would like to know a few things before starting :

- Is there a ratio for the size of a city in real life (in inhabitants) and in game term, so I can remain consistant.

- Has anyone ever worked on the Natchez (in modding) so there are ressource to use (or even no need to make a mod).

- How do I open the database... I tried Excel as "said" in the tutorial (latest version) but it does not want to work.

Thank you for your answer. I ll give you more info about the DB problem tonight or tomorrow.

I believe the conflict is interesting because :

1. It is occuring in an area of the game not used much by any other campaign
2. It is French vs Indians - rare 3. It is a fairly short war (less than 2 years), so it would be a good training as far as moding is concerned
4. It could be extended to other French-Indians wars in the 1730ies
5. It was historically unbalanced AGAINST the Natchez, but In MP, it is easy to balance with "unhistorical events", that I would include as "nasty tricks". More information on that : during the Natchez revolt, the French were convinced that the situation was much worse than it looked (and it did not look too good in 1729 / early 1730) because they thought that :
a. there was a plot of all Indians to expel the French - they believed this because the Yatzous (Yazoo) attacked a French city less than one month after the destruction of the French city of Natchez,
b. the English were actively helping the Indians against the French - such a story is always believable,
c. the Indians had passed an agreement with the slaves with were going to revolt the moment the Indians would attack - they believed this because the slaves of the village of Natchez joined the Indians and fought with them.
All of these proved false, though.

So, in MP at least, the Natchez player would have the option to prepare one of the 3 (or more if I can imagine more) nasty trick, which he would then trigger at any moment in game and would throw the French off-balance [either his Indian "allies" would turn coat, or he would meet an English force, or one of his city would lose all defensive bonus for a few turns]. Of course, I would implement that last

Sounds good. Was there any historical chance of meeting an English force though?

I found the best way to start modding was to take a simple existing scenario and just change its name then try and load it up as a new scenario.
Once you have managed that you can start playing around with the setup and events.

The interesting points in these Fox wars are that :
- the French aren't a powerful warring faction due to its limited combat assets, but rather behave like an intertribal warparty instead, whose leaders are on the field leading the various native warbands on their side.
- The Sauk, Kickapoo and Mascouten historically turned coat to side with the French in the middle of the war (this can be modelled as an option for example, or let as is for an interesting what-if).

Late war options (1737) :
- The Natchez, Chickasaw conflict vs French can extend the conflict to the lower Mississipi
- The Dakota are in war with Ojibwa.

Those are the files produced after being run through the splitter and then the game. You need to download the DB and use the Excel files - then convert them using the splitter which you can also download. There is also a mod guide you can download (mod forum sticky).

Personal note : if you forget to put the "0" back to the "region's name" it is going to create an error.

I am not to sure for many Indians : the Hasinai might be more in Texas, the Southern Chactas are ... somewhere... in the general area, and the Western Chactas are close to what would be Vicksburg according to... wikipedia (sorry).

For the Yazoo, I don't know yet whether I should "separate" the French settlement of Yazoo from the Indian tribe, or if I just make the French settlement "change side" by event when the Yazoo revolt and destroy it.

A couple questions now

What is in game term the difference between a stockade and a fort ? Should the small French wooden forts of the era be forts or stockade ?

Why can't I have a depot and a stockade in the same region ?

I think I will set up for the following policy :
Indian with fortified villages : "stockade"
French forts : "Fort"
Natchez Indian village : "Fort"
Fort Louis in Mobile : Level 2 Fort

Final question : can you confirm that level 1 cities are razed when taken ?

Narwhal wrote:Since you are there, Chris, how do you detect the "error" with the script report. It reports the "warning" all right, but not the "errors"...

I'm not sure if I understand the problem - I just search the script report for "=>" (or is it "->") I forget now - but not sure if that is what you are asking?

Cheers, Chris
P.S. stockades and settlements I think are the same really but are called by different names to add flavour. A fort gives a little more benefit than either of the above structures. There should be no problem to have a stockade and depot in the same region. I don't think level 1 cities are razed - if you do a search I think there are some threads on this. I don't think they can be taken by Indians (I'm off to bed - but can probably give you more info on this if you need it in the next couple of days). If you want you can destroy a city by event.

Stockades and Settlements are special-case cities. Very low supply, no ammo, and can be destroyed by Pillagers (attribute *pillage* in model).

Cities are not destroyed by pillagers in latest version, and I'm honestly not sure otherwise. IIRC, with advanced AutoGarrison on, a city or port can be reduced to level one by raids, but not destroyed....

DO NOT put a Stockade in a City, nor in a Settlement. This constitutes "2 city structures" error. The Master put in a workaround for this in 1.09a, but these kind of workarounds get "lost" sometimes with next upgrade (they are non-standard to latest engine. easy to overlook)

Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem! [CENTER][/CENTER]

Hobbes wrote:I'm not sure if I understand the problem - I just search the script report for "=>" (or is it "->") I forget now - but not sure if that is what you are asking?

That was the question. Thanks. Once you find your first "bug" in the 11 000 lines or so of script, you understand how to do it. But not before

P.S. stockades and settlements I think are the same really but are called by different names to add flavour. A fort gives a little more benefit than either of the above structures. There should be no problem to have a stockade and depot in the same region. I don't think level 1 cities are razed - if you do a search I think there are some threads on this. I don't think they can be taken by Indians (I'm off to bed - but can probably give you more info on this if you need it in the next couple of days). If you want you can destroy a city by event.

Anyway to have the Indians able to capture cities ? What did you do in your Pontiac scenario ? I need a credible threat on Nouvelle-Orléans

Cities are not destroyed by pillagers in latest version, and I'm honestly not sure otherwise. IIRC, with advanced AutoGarrison on, a city or port can be reduced to level one by raids, but not destroyed....

Advanced AutoGarrison will be off, as else there is a significant risk that there are more garrison created than population

All my scenarios have stockades in cities so I hope the fix is not lost But I restricted this to level 1 cities as that has never seemed to cause a problem – it did with level 2 and above. If I want irregular troops to take cities I just use an event to destroy the structure if there are no friendly land units in the area but there are enemy troops (i.e. the garrison has been destroyed).

My computer died, and I lost my data on the Natchez. But this is for the better. I had "I create and then I will see approach", let's call it incremental, and it did not work. Also, I found out my researches were not quite enough, and I more or less doubled them. Now I am more motivated than ever and while I start from scratch again it will go fairly quick now !

Glad to hear it Narwhal. Hope it goes well. It rarely goes as quickly as you expect though I tend to get bursts where I do a lot and then little for a while. I always try and do a small amount each week at least when in a fallow period to keep everything in my head and have the feeling of some progress.